Is exFAT always this damn slow ?!

[Seeker47]

For quite some time now, nearly all portable HDDs and flashdrives that you buy have been coming set for ex-FAT. I never liked ex-FAT, partly because my older devices -- of which I have several, in regular use -- won't recognize it. So I reformat everything before first use to NTFS, which has been very reliable here and everything I have can access it. I just copied some video files to a major brand USB 3.2 gen. flashdrive that had been left set for ex-FAT, and was dismayed to be getting just ~ 6.5 MB/Sec. xfer speeds. Then I immediately copied some very comparable files to a major brand USB gen. 3.0 flashdrive that was set for NTFS, and was getting over 40 MB/S. Have to try that with some HDDs for comparison, but so far this seems to be validating my preferences.

[Perhaps this will bring up something about drivers. (?) I'm running Win-10 Pro x64 at current 22H2 level.]

[cholla]

I usually use NTFS to format a HDD or flash drive.
If an older device requires FAT32 I use that.

Also consider the Allocation size used.
Larger for fewer large files.
Smaller for several smaller files.

[ChristianundCo]

Yes, ext-fat is the reason. I had the same problem with my Samsung SSD. NTFS performs automatic trimming. Check the drive properties to make sure trim optimization is enabled.

[ProWo]

Ex-Fat formatted hard disks/sticks are very often fake with a much smaller data volume than stated.

[usually_quiet]

I never noticed that copying to or from exFAT-formatted drives was slower. However, in my case, the devices that will use the drive dictate the formatting, so speed is a moot point. Nothing that I own with an Android-based OS can read an NTFS-formatted drive but they can read an exFAT-formatted drive.

[cholla]

I have not had a "fake flash drive"
Try this as I believe it will detect the size on a "fake flash drive".
I just do not have one to test with.

In Command
To determine allocation size & other information:

Use diskpart.exe.
in command type: diskpart
Once you are in diskpart select
type: list volume
type: select volume <VolumeNumber>
type: filesystems.

Example:
select Volume 7

[Seeker47]

Yes, ext-fat is the reason. I had the same problem with my Samsung SSD. NTFS performs automatic trimming. Check the drive properties to make sure trim optimization is enabled.

fwiw, I was checking each drive with Windows' built-in 'Properties', then if having to do a conversion to NTFS by using Rufus, with standard options. (I'm a bit confused in that some of the flashdrives were listed as "Large FAT-32." Is that a synonym for ex-FAT ? The irrefutable test is going to be if they refuse to take a copy of a file larger than 4GB . . . . )

For many years, I've tried to only purchase premium brands of flashdrives, those having the best warranties. And as much as possible, nothing Made in China -- not just as regards flashdrives, either. Taiwan or Korea: O.K., No Problem My faves were in the Patriot line: 'Rage' or 'Boost' series, with at least 3 years, sometimes 5 on the warranty. The 'Rage' series had a rubberized, anti-shock housing Those became much harder to find at any brick & mortar that I ever get to, after the demise of Frys Electronics. Definitely not fakes ! I think the only flashdrive that ever died on me was a no-name off-brand. Some people reported them getting hot -- or even melting ! -- while playing back a 2-hour movie . . . but I've never seen that. Watched one again that way last night.

[Seeker47]

I also did another test last night: that playback was from a flashdrive left as ex-FAT. I did not expect my Oppo BR deck to recognize it, via the USB, which is how I pipe a lot of stuff to the big screen tv. But it did. I expect the Nvidia Shield would do likewise. But almost a lock that the WD Live TV box won't.

[zing269]

FAT32 and exFAT are not the same.

FAT32 came out during the Windows 95 era has the 2gb file and 4tb volume limitations, depending on sector size and large file support.

exFAT was designed for flash drives and has reduced overhead compared to FAT32. It was introduced with Windows CE 6.0 and was considered easier to implement in firmware for embedded devices.

Many / most removable drives are formatted exFAT because it is compatible with Windows, MacOS, Android, and recent versions of Linux (kernel 5.4 +) so it will just work for most people.

[HemLok]

David Plummer, owner of the YouTube channel "Dave's Garage", worked for Microsoft way back and wrote the Windows 95 format program among other things. He has talked about the FAT32 32GB limit. He's responsible for it and it just never got increased until Windows 11 increased it to 2TB. His video about it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bikbJPI-7Kg.

[lordsmurf]

I've read/heard that exFAT has reliability issues with macOS, but I've never experienced that. Not something I've dug into it, and not even sure how true it is.

That alone makes me want to avoid it when possible. I can afford HFS software for Windows, what I can't afford is lost drives/data.

[Seeker47]

But first and foremost thing noticed is that it is OLD arthritic dog SLOW. Hard to believe how slow. I'm copying a 4.3 GB file to that 256GB flash drive, and it's like watching paint dry. To top it all off, after the copy the file copied onto the flash drive failed Verification for exact match to the source. Haven't run into that in quite awhile. That was just a flashdrive left ex-FAT for testing purposes. I will soon return to never letting that pre-formatting stand !

[potatomon]

I've read/heard that exFAT has reliability issues with macOS, but I've never experienced that. Not something I've dug into it, and not even sure how true it is.

That alone makes me want to avoid it when possible. I can afford HFS software for Windows, what I can't afford is lost drives/data.

What kind of reliability issues? I use FAT32 external drives for storing and editing video content for work, never had any i/o issues with the 30+ 5TB hdds I've used

[lordsmurf]

I use FAT32

FAT32 is not exFAT.

[Seeker47]

Much more practical evidence kept accumulating here, demonstrating that Ex-FAT was atrociously, unacceptably SLOW. I don't care what they recommend it for: I'm abandoning the use of it, except for already formatted cases where a lot has already been stored, and doing a xfer / change would seem to be an unwarranted pain in the rear.

[ozymango]

I don't care what they recommend it for: I'm abandoning the use of {ex-FAT}

I don't think anybody is gonna make you use ex-FAT if you don't want to.

I use ex-FAT with no issues for copying large video files (larger than 4gb) to USB Media for playback on devices that don't read NTFS. My sister-in-law has an older TV that'll play back ex-FAT, but won't read NTFS (at least from a USB flash drive). The playback speed seems to be okay, no buffering of the video stream, which suits my purposes. I don't sit and watch large file transfers, I just start them and come back later, so I can't speak to the file transfer speed concern. But again nobody is forcing me to use any particular file formats.

[videoAI]

FAT32 supports drives up to 2 TB, max file size 4 GB, and is widely compatible with older systems.
exFAT removes the 4 GB file‑size limit, works up to 128 PB, and is optimized for flash storage while retaining broad OS support.
Use FAT32 for maximum compatibility with legacy devices; choose exFAT when you need large files or modern removable media.

[Seeker47]

Fortunately, all of my playback devices -- including some rather older ones -- support NTFS. Yes, you can start a large file copy and just walk away. Many real world results that I'm seeing consistently with ex-FAT, using USB3 flashdrives on USB3 ports: 6 - 12 MB /sec., when copying files often in the 20 MB to 20 GB range sometimes dipping well below that speed of 6. Do the exact same copy operations in NTFS format: over 100 MB / sec. performance. I have scads of major brand flashdrives on hand. I believe the performance is similar for portable HDDs, under the same conditions. Have to keep buying more storage, both for backup purposes and to support a humongous library of movies. There are also a couple people that I periodically curate additional video collections for, provided to them on flashdrive. 256 GB ones have become the sweet spot of late; hope that does not in time morph into 512 GB ones, even though the pricing on the latter has gotten much more reasonable. So, I have a lot of experience with this. (I'm using mostly computers with i7 cpu and 32 GB of RAM, don't think those to be relevant factors.)

[* Reading from the ex-FAT drive to copy off of it does better, at around 73 MB /s.]